something really bad. in the 1920s germany destroyed their currency and elected hitler. people say that's an over-the-top comparison. you worry about what comes out of destruction of currency. do people choose a strong leader were there enough people who still love liberty to say there is another way we can come out of this and that's involving freedom and free markets in the individual. it's important even if you're a minority in case something bad does happen and we have to change direction in a country that we don't go in the wrong direction. >> yes here. go ahead and take a back up to the back. >> ken meyer -- [inaudible] does he plan to commemorate the upcoming nato summit in chicago and anyway? >> i don't know. >> not that i know of.

it strikes me is not the sort of thing he tends to do, so i'm going to say not. >> i don't know. not his usual style of paint. yes in the back row. >> question for brian doherty. looking at 2012, which presidential come if it's romney for obama, which victory would be better for the small incubating ron paul movement or would there be any difference at all? >> i had to think about this morning talking to reporters so i have a fresh answer. yesterday i didn't have an answer. for reasons i cannot articulate, i'm pretty convinced obama will win reelection and i cannot defend that, they just set it on the record. you can get back to me about it. since the republican party as a vehicle through which this action is happening now, it's

probably better if romney wins and is as bad as libertarians expect them to be, which allows for a convinced game primary challenger to really make real to the party but there's two things fighting for supremacy, like in 1860 was the rockefeller wing versus the goldwater rain. not to place any particular weight on any particular paul, but it strikes me that in my grand historical vision of puppet mastering, type may be romney when ensuring republican party they can't do it any more people like romney might be great. >> sounds at a good question to have no comment on for me. [laughter] >> of different question. were you wearing on your lapel that looks at a red cent? >> they started handing these

out. you can get one for a dollar. it's just a penny that is painted with red fingernail polish and their motto was not one red cent more. the government has taken all my money and i'm not giving them one red cent more. spin that could be worse. our swedish friends used to have a picture of a kroner cut in half, signifying their desire to be allowed to keep half the money they earn. [laughter] >> yes, ratepayer. and then go ahead and give the mic to the gentleman just behind you. >> thank you from a gentleman for time. your anecdote earlier -- >> microphone up to your mouth, please. >> -- rename it the first time i met the senator and i sought out beyond them in the rayburn house. my question is regard to use the term revolution. i've been trying to reconcile how you need to use that word and i find it difficult to use

that word in terms of returning to traditional american of constitutional values. i was curious how your client not to what's going on now. >> the main ring is the 90s that reportorial lee i'm reporting on a phenomenon that calls itself that. the ron paul grassroots again you seem not turn in that logo that appears on the books cover in in early 2007. the main answer is they call it that because the phenomenon i'm working on calls itself that. so i haven't got hard about whether that's an apt term. i'm going to think outside a little bit now that you've asked me. i do think it's an apt term, especially in the link to stick, root linguistic meaning of revolution evolving, i don't think i talked about the constitution much, but they should because it is key to paul's appeal to a lot of people as he is trying to turn us back

to the root notion of constitution liberty unconstitutionally limited government that they believe america started with. you can argue about the listen to arguments about how much hard-core libertarian should go to the u.s. constitution in sympathetic, but in the current context, it would be a great improvement to return to that conception of the constitution and to rollback to a combat involves for the more colloquial revolution, and radical change would be a severe change as well. i do think the term is apt on those levels. >> said he got to know and were around the campaign, it is different than any other came pain because the revolution may or may not be the best for them about to be a couple examples. they said the way we can win at

slots have a blimp. so everybody told him everybody told him that was a idea. what did they do? pick up limping did it anyway. people said let's fly over indianapolis 500 with the wrong call banner or radiology resident on the top of this building, google ron paul. takeoff from kennedy favors building and looked down and see google ron paul intends a letter to spirit for campaign that sack of your own menu to them make their romance ads. a lot of creative stuff came out of the youtube's, but it is a movement because they would libertarians, they didn't like being told what to do. they did what they wanted to do and it needed a much more interesting campaign. they were going to do what they want us to do, but a made up more interesting than typical campaign.

>> at tea parties and mention a couple times with a couple different contacts and the question i have is the certainly seemed like there was a movement that had its origins in the 2008 campaign at least parallel is very supportive of the senators in 2010, but since then, it seems to have gone off in a different direction. not necessarily opposite the movement, but definitely somewhat different. it is very disturbing to see exit polls during the republican primary, see romney getting a vast majority of the tea party support, which was completely off topic. so i wonder from your work on the boat and being that the campaign if you could give us a different perspective of what you think this happens there and if it's possible to bring the folks sympathetic to the tea party back to the fold so to speak. >> i'll quickly address the question of the connection between the ron paul weight and

tea party movement. as a matter of intellectual history, i think it is fair to say in the sense that the notion of a trance party same shrinking government movement that attached itself to the economic review the tea party all started with ron paul in december 16, 2007. the problem of intellectual history's most people don't know any history, so having said that i will also say most of the people who became coalescing into this in mind around the turn didn't necessarily know that edward necessarily acting as same imposed that the original ron paul be the tea party movement came from. so it's fair to argue that ron paul is a moderate tea party and also didn't have a lot to do with the moderate tea party. just like you said, was distressed to see tea party identified people being for romney. it struck me and i've written

this that logically by political logic, the tea party should've been in ron paul's pocket and the other problem is that people are not logical about their politics. senator paul has identified himself with the tea party and away he might want to address if he agrees something has gone wrong. i felt on the trail in 2011, 2012 that it was the only good bodies continued to that notion identification, certainly not the ron paul world. i was feeling that the tea party as labeled has been less of a story 2012 and expected it to be >> i think brian is right and the first tea party was december 16, 2007 because i was staring us in austin and there were other tea parties that came around.

do they really starting to decimate? or 2009? in 2009 i was beginning to think about running as msn space talking is going to give a speech at saturday the 20 people through their 700 people, the biggest rally ever seen. but i think it had its origin and roots in the 2007, 2008 campaign. iowa say there's two things that got the tea party started, two issues. people unhappy about obamacare and people also unhappy about the bank bailouts. but going around that movement also is a hearkening back to rules, the rules be the constitution the government. when people say the tea party said, i think it's in a dinosaur amazing victory that we've gone from no unquestioning the constitutionality of laws for 60 or 70 years, particular the public, but even the print court

to take an obamacare to the supreme court. when i first started coming in simplicity was incredulous. it then went to district court and is not summarily dismissed as liberals predict a 95 conservative justices saying that in a cavity is not commerce and if we can regulate an activity, we can regulate anything. it would be no limit what government can do. on the parallel course events of the justices say that by your thinking about buying something at commerce in making the decision not to buy it, but your thought process engaged in commerce and that might be a bit of a stretch. but you've got competing influences. even the factor having that discussion is amazing and i think we're going to win in june. the tea party was run to big sellout some of the same anger people have had in the wall street movement, but also about obamacare and the constitution, some about the 10th amendment. as the 10th amendment movement

in there. when i got to presidential politics, they didn't have a firm opinion on policy custody broke the same way republicans have been breaking that libertarians less interventionist, more restrained foreign policy is that this 20% to 30% of the republican primary, but maybe is was 15% to 20%. in the tea party breaks up and decide for me think other people acceptable because of foreign policy, a lot of the tea party traditionally conservative broke away from ron paul and the same way many republicans say. ..

how can he be part of it in countries like afghanistan. there are so many jobs that are created because of involvement in the countries. his views are very honest yet very simple.

>> unquestionably, every time government loses money for whatever purpose, it is creating a job i paying someone to do something. ron paul learned a lot of his economics. just as you can see, the money that is moving around -- it doesn't mean that the government stops moving money around and there will be no jobs. it means people and what they want will be reflected. if the government isn't moving around, the jobs that will be created with what people actually want to do -- not the we weird imperial power games that washington chooses to do with their wealth. of course there will be adjustments, but it will be a world that is richer and the and

because more people are actually getting what they want and not what washington decides they should have. >> yes, i would just say that in the marketplace, 300 million people get to vote on what it wants the money. in government, a select few do. the whole jeffersonian idea is to minimize what they do. because what they do takes money away from the productive sector. most of us believe in limited government and believe that we should only have the bare minimum of what we need. because then i am deciding where your money is. whereas if i leave it in your pocket, it is also the more productive sector. government is not very productive. we have ask hundred million dollars in checks that we lead to dead people. we don't do a very good job. you have to have some people to protect through the military and army?

yes. but then we are taking it and voting in on how to use it, and we don't use it as effectively as the marketplace uses it. so whether or not that i is naïve or not, even if you believe that government should be creating jobs by doing things, we are spending more than a trillion dollars and we don't have each year. so it's not even real money or real assets or savings that we are sending overseas. we do have a lot of things at home. we have two bridges in my state that are over 50 years old that need to be replaced. one of the famous lines was we bomb bridges over there and we build them while their falling out over here. the private sector is argued to be more productive than the public sector. and we should always minimize how large it gets. >> yes, brian, i know that you are a big comics nerd.

could you talk a little bit about what helped produce this endlessly written by a radioactive's writer or something? and senator paul, could you talk about what it was like to have rand paul is your father. was he a libertarian parent, and if so, was that a good thing or bad thing? >> welcome i think even i need to talk about this. i have been a little bit scoffing at stories that try to because believe in the pennsylvania dutch background that you grew up in. a lot of people don't like that. if you ask the congressman this question from and i believe him when he says it, it has to do with a lot of views that libertarians have. you know, books like doctor

zhivago, it hits home for him the subject of communism and economics blackbird help him understand the dangers of inflation. and it is really an intellectual thing for him. it is obviously emotional as well, but i don't think he can explain it by anything other than he picked up the right literature. and i think it's the great wheel of life turning, helping to make sure the millions of other kids are reading right literature as well. >> it really does go back to the nurture nature argument. i think he was born with individualist blood in his body. they were a family that didn't have a lot of money. he was in the depression, people counted pennies and nickels. they really watch everything they spend. even though they had a little bit of land, maybe an acre and they grew all the vegetables and they work hard. and they knew what hard work was

like. i think he didn't like people telling them what to do. a lot of people are born that way. but then he discovered pasternak and von mises. so as he began to read those things, i don't think there are what makes you an individual but they give you an argument to support your individualism. so whether or not you're born that way, i don't know, but it's always a common nation of that and a lot of us. >> no curfew, you know it's gets to the other issues that other people have. can you be traditional and very conservative in your personal life and be very libertarian in what you think government should be involved in. sometimes i think that libertarians are upset that

someone is considered to traditionally conservative cannot understand something else. something that they don't want laws against for certain things. but at the same time, they are very conservative and live in a traditional conservative family. and unfortunately i didn't get in trouble a few times. >> okay, let's take the last question. >> rj smith, competitive enterprise institute. i think one of the most interesting things that have come out of the rand paul revolution has been some of the new people who have been elected and the rediscovery of property rights and the importance of the fifth amendment and compensation. it just happens that the most courageous person on the u.s. senate in the 40 years since

environmental movement got started has basically been using environmental laws to take property rights without compensation, it has been rand paul and my three and bickering with the legislation, they have been reduced to stop the epa and army corps of engineers from claiming drylands as wetlands and taking this is no compensation. preventing the use of gibson guitar company from bringing in woods from foreign countries who say it's okay. i wonder if you would comment on that. >> is top-secret. i'm not allowed to tell you. no, i'm kidding. i collected a lot of these stories. we have introduced legislation red that's the thing the win after gibson guitar. he didn't call me that i discovered that we were actually

forced to be regulated under four months. you can be convicted of honduran revelations and spend time in u.s. prisons over everything. so we have gone after things like that on the lacey act. people have been in prison for putting dirt on their own land, basically raising the elevation of their own land. people say that they are a polluter because they're putting birth on thailand. a lot of these over criminalization's and we are very interested and we will keep going after them. >> i would like to add that. we have known each other for years. we both used to work together in the old townhouse in the early '90s. it wasn't as impressed as maybe i should have been. i was thinking that yes, oh, the epa and property rights oh, yes, we have been talking about that in 1991.

i've heard it before. and i thought it was just us, but it is indeed a big and grand thing and thank you for bringing that point on. >> all right, the book is revolution by rand paul. thank you all for being here. books are for sale at every bookstore in america. please join us for a book signing and for wine and tea.

this fact is based on the median earnings of all full-time year-round workers. in 2010 when a man earned $47,000, $715, $47,715, a woman ea